Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Fixes for pNFS SCSI layout PR key registration

Benjamin Coddington
2024-06-21T18:03:50Z

On 21 Jun 2024, at 12:22, cel@kernel.org wrote:

> From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
>
> The double registration/unregistration I observed was actually the
> registration and unregistration of two separate block devices: one
> for /media/test and one for /media/scratch. So, that was a false
> alarm.
>
> The complete fstests run shows:
>
> Failures: generic/126 generic/355 generic/450 generic/740
>
> unknown: run fstests generic/108 at 2024-06-21 10:13:58
> systemd[1]: Started fstests-generic-108.scope - /usr/bin/bash -c test -w /proc/self/oom_score_adj && echo 250 > /proc/self/oom_score_adj; exec ./tests/generic/108.
> kernel: sd 6:0:0:1: reservation conflict
> kernel: sd 6:0:0:1: [sdb] tag#30 FAILED Result: hostbyte=DID_OK driverbyte=DRIVER_OK cmd_age=0s
> kernel: sd 6:0:0:1: [sdb] tag#30 CDB: Read(10) 28 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00
> kernel: reservation conflict error, dev sdb, sector 0 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x0 phys_seg 32 prio class 2
> systemd[1]: fstests-generic-108.scope: Deactivated successfully.
>
> These errors appear in the system journal only when the whole
> fstests series is run. I can see the "block_rq_complete [-52]" in
> the trace log. But the test output shows:
>
> generic/108 [not run] require cel-nfsd:/export/nfs-pnfs-fs-s to be valid block disk
>
> generic/450 is also failing:
>
> generic/450 - output mismatch (see /data/fstests-install/xfstests/results/cel-nfs-pnfs/6.10.0-rc4-gd24c98202dbe/nfs_pnfs/generic/450.out.bad)
> --- tests/generic/450.out 2024-06-20 16:50:06.548035014 -0400
> +++ /data/fstests-install/xfstests/results/cel-nfs-pnfs/6.10.0-rc4-gd24c98202dbe/nfs_pnfs/generic/450.out.bad 2024-06-21 10:44:02.600634341 -0400
> @@ -8,4 +8,6 @@
> direct read the second block contains EOF
> direct read a sector at (after) EOF
> direct read the last sector past EOF
> +expect [2093056,4096,0], got [2093056,4096,4096]
> direct read at far away from EOF
> +expect [104857600,4096,0], got [104857600,4096,4096]
> ...
>
> However this might be a bug that existed before this series.
>
> The other three explicit test failures are usual for NFSv4.1.
>
> ---
> Changes since RFC:
> - series re-ordered to place fixes first
> - address review comments as best I can

Looks good, I like the bitops over the bool for pr_registered.

For the series:
Reviewed-by: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com>

Ben